I must ask--zero anthropogenic emissions? which is what, 2.5% of the total? How do you plan to deal with the real heart of greenhouse gas emission...forest fires (99% naturally occurring), vegetation decay, volcanos, etc?
Jim On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 06:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Ray Taylor <[email protected]> writes: > > I see the argument for zero emissions by 2040, but a wise guy will > point out that if we stop all diesel and wood burning etc, the loss > of > particulate emissions would cause a reduction in global dimming and > very likely ACCELERATE warming (at least lower atmosphere air > temperatures, I think) - Lovelock has been saying this in recent > clips. > > Of course, this adds strongly to the case for a COMBINED approach > of > > (i) urgent reductions in pure/potent greenhouse gases with short > half > lives (eg HFC23) > > (ii) physical cooling strategies (Salter Latham / pale roads / cool > roofs / broadleaf forests in place of dark pine / expand Mali > wetlands > for more low altitude clouds over land / see pdf on semi-arid > tropics > at www.globalcoolers.net ) > > (iii) emissions reductions (all the usual suspects, but maybe less > aggressive on diesel than on petrol) > > Ray > LARI > > On Apr 25, 5:56 pm, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > As a general comment, I think it's best to consider an immediate > cut to zero > > emissions when analysing climate effects. Whilst totally > unrealistic, it > > gets across the message that we may have already fallen over the > waterfall, > > and no amount of emissions reduction can save us from catastrophic > effects. > > Based on this 'zero-option': > > From my personal understanding of the research, we've got at least > 40 years > > of further warming in the pipeline, whilst we wait for the oceans > to warm up > > (100rs is probably more likely). Then, we've got the feedbacks > from Amazon > > burn and permafrost melting (not to mention clathrates). We've > also got the > > summer ice-albedo feedback in the North pole. Added to that, > we've got the > > impending collapse of ice sheets, shelves and glaciers - together > with the > > resulting albedo changes. > > > > In my view, it's only when the media start reporting on studies > that show > > +ve feedbacks and catastrophic effects EVEN WITH ZERO EMISSIONS > that we will > > see a sea-change in attitudes to geoengineering from politicians > and the > > public. The current fashion for mitigation has lead to a research > focus > > that's not based on detailed consideration of this zero-option, so > people > > are largely unaware of its consequences. > > > > A > > > > 2009/4/25 Peter Read <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > Hi folks > > > > > John does me too much credit with the word 'modest'. Thought I > had > > > circulated, actually, but as it seems not, the word is > 'forgetful'. > > > > > Be that as it may, and given : > > > A that time may be running out > > > B that the last time I had something substantial to say > it took > > > three years to reach the light of day through the formal peer > review > > > process [ Climatic > Change<http://www.springerlink.com/content/100247/?p=a149716f589d4744b87c b8c...> > > > *, * *87/3-4 *(2008) Biosphere carbon stock management: > addressing the > > > threat of abrupt climate change in the next few decades: an > editorial > essay<http://www.springerlink.com/content/rt798740226381q8/?p=4888011a778 b4...> > > > Peter Read > <http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Peter+Read> > > > 305-320) ] and > > > C that I don't have the modelling capacity at my disposal > to turn > > > the idea into a formal paper, beyond what I presented to the > IPCC meeting in > > > Berlin, Nov 2007, > > > > > >http://ecf.pik-potsdam.de/past-events/ipcc-conference-1/documents-1/P... <http://ecf.pik-potsdam.de/past-events/ipcc-conference-1/documents-1/P... > > which > > > I find difficult to access but is also viewable at > > >http://ips.ac.nz/publications/publications/show/219. > > > would it be possible to use this blog for peer review of the > language in my > > > guardianonline article reproduced by John? > > > > > viz: "A measure of the threat is the accumulation of warmth > from > > > successive summers, which is making the glaciers' undersides > increasingly > > > mushy. Even a deeply implausible reduction of emissions to zero > in 25 years > > > sees that measure treble over the next half-century with no end > in sight." > > > > > This metric is discussed at slightly greater length in sections > 4 and 5 of > > > my long essay "Global Gardening with a Leaky Bucket: Addressing > climate > > > catastrophe through Art 3.3 of the UNFCCC" which can be accessed > at > > >http://seat.massey.ac.nz/personal/p.read/GGLBnqf25ix08.pdf. If > anyone > > > sees anything wrong with this suggestion could they please > comment, but note > > > there are several danger metrics discussed in Tim Lenton's paper > last year > > > and others may turn out to be correct. When discussing threats > all > > > possibilities need to be considered unless demonstrably > incorrect. > > > > > Ken once mentioned to me that there is a more academic blog for > less > > > informal discussion of geo-engineering issues and maybe he could > circulate > > > this message there also. > > > > > If anyone wants to use the concept I would quite like to be > cited. I > > > mention that because I find my ideas - or something like them - > being used > > > without acknowledgement, e.g. in scenarios involving substantial > carbon > > > removals developed recently by Hansen's group and not so far > different from > > > results that I published in the 1990's and reproduced at pp273 > (I think it > > > was, I' ve lost my copy) of the IPCC's 2000 LULUC report. > > > > > Attempting to communicate, possibly to collaborate, with Hansen, > I got this > > > message from one of his colleagues (Pushker Kharecha) whom I > suppose didn't > > > want Jim to know that some of his analysis was not exactly new. > > > > > I fully understood what you were requesting, and I was trying > to be > > > reasonably polite about the whole thing, but let me now be more > blunt. > > > > > Completely setting aside my assessment of your essay and draft > paper, your > > > email messages alone contain too many erroneous statements to > even count at > > > this point, much less attempt to correct. I don't know what your > academic > > > background is, but it's unfortunately clear that you not only > have a > > > fundamental lack of understanding about much of our paper, but > you also > > > don't seem to grasp some key aspects of general carbon cycle > science. Given > > > all of this it simply wouldn't make sense for Jim to endorse > your > > > presentation. Again, I sincerely regret to tell you these > things, since > > > ultimately you do seem well-intentioned and genuinely concerned > about the > > > issues. > > > > > Dirty work at the academic crossroads? > > > > > Cheers > > > Peter > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > *From:* John Nissen <[email protected]> > > > *To:* geoengineering <[email protected]> > > > *Cc:* [email protected] ; Davies, > John<[email protected]> > > > *Sent:* Friday, April 24, 2009 3:01 AM > > > *Subject:* [geo] The emissions reductions gospel is failing - we > need > > > something more > > > > > Contribution from our geoengineering comrade, Peter Read (since > he's > > > probably too modest to post it himself): > > > > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/apr/15/geoengine... > > > > > Interviewed last week, John Holdren, President Obama's chief > scientific > > > adviser, said that drastic measures should not be "off the > table"<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/08/geo-engineering- joh...>in > discussions on how best to tackle climate > > > change <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change> > and that > > > > <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/geoengineering>geo-engineering<htt p://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/geoengineering>could > not be ruled out. Making clear these were his personal views, he > said: > > > "It's got to be looked at. We don't have the luxury of taking > any approach > > > off the table." > > > > > He's right. We don't have that luxury – not only because the > Kyoto > > > protocol's first phase, running to 2012, is manifestly failing, > but because > > > the emissions reduction approach that it embodies cannot > succeed. It is > > > manifestly failing because emissions are going ahead faster than > even the > > > worst scenarios considered by the IPCC, which provides > scientific > > > assessments to the UN Climate Convention and because many rich > countries are > > > on course to fall short of their emissions reductions > commitments. > > > > > Research since the IPCC's last assessment reveals that the > threat of > > > climatic disaster is more serious than previously supposed. > Several threats > > > exist but the most imminent is probably a collapse of > substantial areas of > > > land-based ice into the > oceans<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-ice-sheet -se...>, > > > as studies of ancient climates show happened in previous warming > phases. > > > This seems likely to be due to the lubrication of Greenland's > ice floes by > > > water that accumulates year after year, with warmer summers > melting the > > > surface and rivers of melt-water flowing down crevasses to the > bedrock, > > > making the underside of the ice increasingly mushy and prone to > slip down > > > towards the ocean. Reports from Greenland, of increased > frequency of > > > "ice-quakes", suggest that areas of the ice cover have slipped > and bumped > > > into other areas that are still stuck. When the last bit gives > way there may > > > be an unstoppable rush of ice into the ocean, as with ancient > warming > > > phases, raising ocean levels by several metres over a few > decades. > > > > > "Probably"? "Likely"? "Suggest"? "Maybe"? Yes, all is uncertain > and the > > > models are inadequate. But you don't drive full-speed down a > twisty lane on > > > a foggy winter's night hoping there's no ice round the next > bend. A measure > > > of the threat is the accumulation of warmth from successive > summers, which > > > is making the glaciers' undersides increasingly mushy. Even a > deeply > > > implausible reduction of emissions to zero in 25 years sees that > measure > > > treble over the next half-century with no end in sight. > > > > > So something more than emissions reductions is needed. We must > take CO2 out > > > of the atmosphere or prevent some of the sun's radiation from > reaching the > > > surface. But geo-engineering is usually thought of as shielding > the earth > > > from solar radiation by whitening clouds and by putting > reflectors in space > > > between earth and sun. The latter seems difficult to reverse and > perhaps a > > > very last resort. But whitening clouds can be quickly halted. It > involves > > > putting sulphur aerosols into the clouds in amounts that are > trivial > > > compared with the effects of either volcanic eruptions or coal > burning > > > worldwide. Or injecting saltwater micro-particles into ocean > clouds which, > > > whitened, then rain slightly salty water back into the oceans. > > > > > Amazing though it may seem, these apparently hopeful options are > opposed by > > > NGOs that seem more willing to run the risk of climatic > catastrophe than > > > deviate from the emissions reductions gospel. Their concern > seems to be that > > > geo-engineering will result in relaxed pressure to reduce > emissions<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/18/climatechange -green...>, > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > > > ____________________________________________________________ Injured in a car or at work? Click here to find a personal injury lawyer. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTOh2Tk0rIkfqWxKVjvMrNvMT7FhRjasmiGA3Z80wRubmDNNryXSQQ/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
